It is hard to avoid the realization that the American continuous support for Israel is not up for a president to manipulate.
Over the course of the last years and particularly during the saga that wrapped up the nuclear deal with Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has showed less respect to President Obama. Not only did Netanyahu publicly endorse Obama’s opponent in the 2012 presidential campaign, but he also took the unusual way when he challenged him in a speech given in the Congress in which he argued against Obama’s flirt with Iran.
Amid this acrimonious personal relationship between Netanyahu and Obama, the American administration just signed an unprecedented military aid agreement whereby the United States will offer $38 billion in aid. To be sure, Israel stands to gain from this deal and Netanyahu can use the deal to send a clear message to the Israeli public that strong leadership can earn Israel better deals.
Of course, there is no love lost between Netanyahu and Obama. And yet, the two sides disagreed on almost everything but the commitment of America to the security and survival of Israel. To be sure, the American support for Israel is bipartisan. More than anything else, the Israelis are aware of this fact and some even consider this fact as a sign of an American weakness vis-à-vis Israel. A few days ago, Ravit Hecht from Haaretz wrote the American aid to Israel is received as “a crazy bonanza for Israel and testimony to the weakness of the American government.”
It is not as if the American administration can use the aid to influence the position of Israel on the peace process for instance. Indeed, the aid is unconditional.
Moshe Dayan, the late Israeli minister of defense, used to pick on the American support by saying that while the United States gave Israel a lot of aid and advice, the Israeli governments took the aid and trash the advice!
It does not matter how many times the successive American administrations mediated peace effort, Israel has always done what it needs to do.
“This is based on the popular belief, justified by politicians and defense officials, that the United States has to thank Israel for its existence and the right to pay it hundreds of millions of dollars a year,” wrote Ravit Hecht. On the whole, Israelis believe that their country’s role during the Cold War was indispensable and warranted the American support.
Indeed, many scholars got in a debate whether the American support for Israel has been out of strategic considerations or just due to cultural affinity. In the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War, the debate centered on whether Israel has become a liability or still an asset to America. It follows that if the bipartisan support was for strategic considerations then many would like to wonder if this support has not yet outlived its usefulness.
To be sure, there is not comparison between the power of the US being the only superpower and a tiny country like Israel. That is being said, it seems Israel is most likely to continue its policy of doing what it likes despite who sits in the White House. Unlike James Baker, a few Americans are willing to force Israel to stop its policy designed to make a two-state solution a viable one. This is true especially in the midst of the disarray in the Middle East and the disintegration of the Sykes-Picot map in the Levant.
Over the course of the last years and particularly during the saga that wrapped up the nuclear deal with Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has showed less respect to President Obama. Not only did Netanyahu publicly endorse Obama’s opponent in the 2012 presidential campaign, but he also took the unusual way when he challenged him in a speech given in the Congress in which he argued against Obama’s flirt with Iran.
Amid this acrimonious personal relationship between Netanyahu and Obama, the American administration just signed an unprecedented military aid agreement whereby the United States will offer $38 billion in aid. To be sure, Israel stands to gain from this deal and Netanyahu can use the deal to send a clear message to the Israeli public that strong leadership can earn Israel better deals.
Of course, there is no love lost between Netanyahu and Obama. And yet, the two sides disagreed on almost everything but the commitment of America to the security and survival of Israel. To be sure, the American support for Israel is bipartisan. More than anything else, the Israelis are aware of this fact and some even consider this fact as a sign of an American weakness vis-à-vis Israel. A few days ago, Ravit Hecht from Haaretz wrote the American aid to Israel is received as “a crazy bonanza for Israel and testimony to the weakness of the American government.”
It is not as if the American administration can use the aid to influence the position of Israel on the peace process for instance. Indeed, the aid is unconditional.
Moshe Dayan, the late Israeli minister of defense, used to pick on the American support by saying that while the United States gave Israel a lot of aid and advice, the Israeli governments took the aid and trash the advice!
It does not matter how many times the successive American administrations mediated peace effort, Israel has always done what it needs to do.
“This is based on the popular belief, justified by politicians and defense officials, that the United States has to thank Israel for its existence and the right to pay it hundreds of millions of dollars a year,” wrote Ravit Hecht. On the whole, Israelis believe that their country’s role during the Cold War was indispensable and warranted the American support.
Indeed, many scholars got in a debate whether the American support for Israel has been out of strategic considerations or just due to cultural affinity. In the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War, the debate centered on whether Israel has become a liability or still an asset to America. It follows that if the bipartisan support was for strategic considerations then many would like to wonder if this support has not yet outlived its usefulness.
To be sure, there is not comparison between the power of the US being the only superpower and a tiny country like Israel. That is being said, it seems Israel is most likely to continue its policy of doing what it likes despite who sits in the White House. Unlike James Baker, a few Americans are willing to force Israel to stop its policy designed to make a two-state solution a viable one. This is true especially in the midst of the disarray in the Middle East and the disintegration of the Sykes-Picot map in the Levant.
